5 ms·

When I have to write something computationally complex in the language my employer wants me to write it in, I first write it in Clojure because it's easier to t

When I have to write something computationally complex in the language my employer wants me to write it in, I first write it in Clojure because it's easier to think about the problem in that language. Then I translate that. I'm willing to bet that any dev who has learned Clojure does the same thing. If I'm right, that's a huge indictment of what we've been doing for the last 60 years in programming.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
You'd lose that bet. I think it's easier to reason about problems in languages you are familiar with and that fit how you think, which can change through continued use. A lot of the other stuff is just post hoc rationalization about why we like these languages and why they are better.
- cutler 9y ago
  Surely the argument being made here is for the best prototyping language, not the most familiar. If familiarity was the only yardstick nothing beyond C would even exist.
  - platz 9y ago
    The argument being made is if it's necessarily efficient to prototype in a different language than the one that will be actually used, especially if one is more familiar with the target language.
  - ritchiea 9y ago
    In a world of options where an experienced programmer has had a chance to experiment with different languages the most familiar language is the best prototyping language. In a world where C is the only option programmers think about what other options they could imagine.
- nickbauman 9y ago
  The opposite of my experience. I have many more years of experience and am far more familiar with in the target language than Clojure. But for the really difficult computational problems, say, for example, particular performance analysis of a sensor network for a given time series, I reach for Clojure.
  - christophilus 9y ago
    Same. Clojure is very, very good at expressing data and data transformations in a simple, concise way. Once I learned to reason in Clojure, it quickly became the language I prefer for playing with a fuzzy problem.
sd34 9y ago
I'm willing to bet that anyone who thinks he's productive in clojure is delusional and don't know how to use a modern functional language. Lisp is not a family of programming languages but a delusion. Homoiconicity is practically useless and there is no evidence showing otherwise.
- vemv 9y ago
  1/10 trolling; not even worth refuting
  - sd34 9y ago
    Lispers often call people trolls who question their delusion. Is it ok to call non-lispers delusional - like OP? And how about calling lispers delusional - who have never shown any evidence on their language's usefulness? Is hypocrisy ok for you? Edit: OP was trolling then - his statements are provocative to every other programmer. You just don't like mine because you're lisp fanatics. Btw, did any of you provided any evidence? I've called out the lack of evidence. No, you can't create better DSLs with lisp. Or if you can: show me. The presence of hygienic macros and homoiconicity won't help in reality. Edit2: C and C++ don't have hygienic macros. Also, talking about the presence of the "evidence" somewhere != showing the evidence. This just proves my previous statements: you're all hype, no evidence. Edit3: Personal preferences are useless. I wasn't talking about OP(who's just a like-minded person) but the top poster.
    - blain_the_train 9y ago
      Troll: a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post. You don't have to be wrong to be a troll, you just have to unhelpful and provocative. Which is what your comment was. You just said "its useless" without even providing the smallest effort in terms of an argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you thought that OP was making bad arguments then make good ones. Personally, i know 4 languages rather well and i do write everything in clojure first and then translate it. OP's article is called "Why i'm more productive in clojure" This sets a tone that doesn't require evidence because its a very personal. If readers choose to interoperate that as "clojure is better" then i can't blame them, but the author at least had the decor to not state their opinions as evidence. In terms of evidence for anything Programming language related, even if you had read every study, your still going to consider your projects needs. So even if Clojure showed a reduction in bugs over java (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8558740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8558740) you should still consider other factors.
sametmax 9y ago
I haven't tried closure but I can believe so. I observe the same phenomenon with Python. Whatever I have to do is just easier to first express in Python then translate for me. I guess there are just some languages that are closer than others to the way we think. It's quite probable that this language changes from dev to dev, depending of habits, type of problems and skills with said language. However I suspect some languages are just better at it by nature as well.
pron 9y ago
I know Clojure and have used it for some projects, and I don't do that. If I need to sketch an algorithm, I'll do it in pseudocode, and if I need to test the design I do it in a verifiable pseudocode, like PlusCal. For sketching/testing numerical algorithms, I use Matlab/Julia.
sidlls 9y ago
Why does the language matter when reasoning about the problem? It seems to me you're conflating "how to solve this problem" with "how to use a particular tool to implement a particular solution to a given problem."

aaron-lebo 9y ago

You'd lose that bet. I think it's easier to reason about problems in languages you are familiar with and that fit how you think, which can change through continued use. A lot of the other stuff is just post hoc rationalization about why we like these languages and why they are better.

cutler 9y ago
Surely the argument being made here is for the best prototyping language, not the most familiar. If familiarity was the only yardstick nothing beyond C would even exist.
- platz 9y ago
  The argument being made is if it's necessarily efficient to prototype in a different language than the one that will be actually used, especially if one is more familiar with the target language.
- ritchiea 9y ago
  In a world of options where an experienced programmer has had a chance to experiment with different languages the most familiar language is the best prototyping language. In a world where C is the only option programmers think about what other options they could imagine.
nickbauman 9y ago
The opposite of my experience. I have many more years of experience and am far more familiar with in the target language than Clojure. But for the really difficult computational problems, say, for example, particular performance analysis of a sensor network for a given time series, I reach for Clojure.
- christophilus 9y ago
  Same. Clojure is very, very good at expressing data and data transformations in a simple, concise way. Once I learned to reason in Clojure, it quickly became the language I prefer for playing with a fuzzy problem.

sd34 9y ago

I'm willing to bet that anyone who thinks he's productive in clojure is delusional and don't know how to use a modern functional language. Lisp is not a family of programming languages but a delusion. Homoiconicity is practically useless and there is no evidence showing otherwise.

vemv 9y ago
1/10 trolling; not even worth refuting
- sd34 9y ago
  Lispers often call people trolls who question their delusion. Is it ok to call non-lispers delusional - like OP? And how about calling lispers delusional - who have never shown any evidence on their language's usefulness? Is hypocrisy ok for you? Edit: OP was trolling then - his statements are provocative to every other programmer. You just don't like mine because you're lisp fanatics. Btw, did any of you provided any evidence? I've called out the lack of evidence. No, you can't create better DSLs with lisp. Or if you can: show me. The presence of hygienic macros and homoiconicity won't help in reality. Edit2: C and C++ don't have hygienic macros. Also, talking about the presence of the "evidence" somewhere != showing the evidence. This just proves my previous statements: you're all hype, no evidence. Edit3: Personal preferences are useless. I wasn't talking about OP(who's just a like-minded person) but the top poster.
  - blain_the_train 9y ago
    Troll: a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post. You don't have to be wrong to be a troll, you just have to unhelpful and provocative. Which is what your comment was. You just said "its useless" without even providing the smallest effort in terms of an argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you thought that OP was making bad arguments then make good ones. Personally, i know 4 languages rather well and i do write everything in clojure first and then translate it. OP's article is called "Why i'm more productive in clojure" This sets a tone that doesn't require evidence because its a very personal. If readers choose to interoperate that as "clojure is better" then i can't blame them, but the author at least had the decor to not state their opinions as evidence. In terms of evidence for anything Programming language related, even if you had read every study, your still going to consider your projects needs. So even if Clojure showed a reduction in bugs over java (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8558740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8558740) you should still consider other factors.

sametmax 9y ago

I haven't tried closure but I can believe so. I observe the same phenomenon with Python. Whatever I have to do is just easier to first express in Python then translate for me. I guess there are just some languages that are closer than others to the way we think. It's quite probable that this language changes from dev to dev, depending of habits, type of problems and skills with said language. However I suspect some languages are just better at it by nature as well.

pron 9y ago

I know Clojure and have used it for some projects, and I don't do that. If I need to sketch an algorithm, I'll do it in pseudocode, and if I need to test the design I do it in a verifiable pseudocode, like PlusCal. For sketching/testing numerical algorithms, I use Matlab/Julia.

sidlls 9y ago

Why does the language matter when reasoning about the problem? It seems to me you're conflating "how to solve this problem" with "how to use a particular tool to implement a particular solution to a given problem."